|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:45 pm
I meant to lock it for a while and deleted it by mistake! stressed Sorry guys!
Anyway, I managed to save your last post Berz...Berzerker prime DM_Melkhar When I think of magic, I think "if magic exists in THIS world, how COULD it exist and what type of source could it come from and where?" I then design my world based on that question, creating a source of magic that sounds realistically plausible to me. I don't have scientists running around in my world discussing with one another how their world works scientifically! And, for the last time, it doesn't matter if your characters are scientists or not. If it's scientifically based, for your own concepts, then it's scientifically based, period. Thinking about how something that could be perceived as magic in this world is thinking about how it would work, scientifically. If you then apply those ideas to your writing, you include science in your writing, by the transitive property. Just having your characters not understand that it is science doesn't make it unscientific. That's not necessarily the bad thing you keep making it out to be. As I said, there's nothing wrong with including some things that are scientifically-based in your writing. But if everything has a scientific explanation, even if your characters don't understand that is has one, then it becomes science fiction rather than fantasy. If you were to present a television set to someone from the Carolingian period, the only explanation they could give for it would be magic, but that doesn't make it actually magical. That would be like calling a chair a window and saying it was true simply because you named it thusly. DM_Melkha Please forgive me if I'm driving you insane again, but now you're frustrating me because you seem to think I am blending my personal interest and the way I choose to analyse things with my writing. I'm not! And I'm remaining confused because you keep insisting that you don't include science in your writing and then insist that it's because you establish how things work in your world in a scientific way. The latter would seem to disprove the former. Here's an example of what I mean... DM_Melkhar Finding explanations for aspects of fantasy has nothing to do with my world... Okay, so no science in your writing. Gotcha... So, there is science involved in your writing after all? Wait a sec, here... DM_Melkhar I simply choose to be realistic in my approach to how everything works rather than settling for the general approach which states that nothing in fantasy has to make sense. I never, ever, said that magic doesn't have to make sense. It simply doesn't need to have a scientific explanation. It still makes perfect sense to, for example, say that magic is drawn from the spirits and power of nature. You don't need to give a scientific explanation for the way that process works. It's can remain a mystery and still be perfectly sensible. Magical aspects of Tolkien's world were never explained at all. They just were. That doesn't mean Middle-earth is a nonsensical world. It's vogue these days to have some sort of explanation of where magic comes from, but that doesn't mean it has to either have a scientific approach or not make sense. Berz.
Otherwise, there is no reality science-based information in my writing.
I write my books to be fantasy science textbooks. I write them to be novels of the fantasy genre, written in a fantasy world. It just so happens that that fantasy world was based on realistic designs.
Heck, I've said before I'm including fault lines as well as every other aspect of geology. Squaresoft, as they were known back then, created their worlds with blocks of mountains. Mountains form in lines, not blocks. There's one example of me designing my world realistically.
Regarding magic...
Ok, personally, I like to think about how magic might work in this world and I create a theory of my own as to how it might. When it comes to shooting lightning bolts and flames from your fingers, I wonder if that were possible, how could it be drawn? So for my world, I've created my own realistic way of doing it.
Jump to the Magic thread for more.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:14 pm
Gee, too bad the thread is gone but at least we can start a new one without conflict, he-he. sweatdrop
I can see how Berz says that magic doesn't need an explanation but sometimes it's nice to know how it works in what world or whatnot.
I'd like to say that for me, something that makes anything into fantasy is placing things into a concept that, much like magic, don't need to be scientifically explained or alike. You know?
I guess there's more to say on the subject so I'll save it for later. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:24 pm
I was going to post in the original thread, but I saw all the chaos and felt odd posting there. xD
My concept on fantasy is that it is completely up to the person perceiving the definition. Some people need scientific data to consider something real, so fantasy relates to all that cannot be explained, even Heaven and Hell. Others see fantasy as those things that appear in Mythology and ancient legends that have not yet been proven real, but don't need science to back up religious beliefs. For me, fantasy is all about what we can imagine and create without the need to define it as real or fake. I do believe thoughts are fantasy based until they are are put into action in "real" life and can be experienced: they aren't real because they have not happened to us physically, yet they aren't fake because they are "real" thoughts and can be explained and seen. Those creatures found in Greek Mythology, for example, are not exactly "fantasy" because they existed, at least, in the minds of those that believed them, but are not real because they have yet to come out in broad daylight and say "Hey, we exist physically!".
I hope my post wasn't too confusing. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:33 am
No, it wasn't confusing at all ED. At least to me it wasn't.
For my own world, I create things and use ideas that exist or are believed in in this world, and I come up with my own inventions as well of course.DM_Melkhar Don't get me wrong, I LOVE fantasy in all it's forms, both realistic and unrealistic. I simply chose to create a world to write in that does make sense.
I delve into the scientific elements of these things because I want my world to be as realistic as I can make it with lots of those supernatural elements thrown in that the people of that world can relate to in the same way we can relate to such things in our world. I don't go into detail about how vampires work biologically in my writing. If one of my characters said they were baffled by the concept, then I can mention the studies of scholars who have procured such results. Most peoples in my world know that vampires exist because they DO exist within it. They might exist in our world judging from the many myths and legends about them and true stories that have occurred that suggest their existence.
I link the existence and beliefs held about such things to my own writing.
Scientific elements are purely for my own research as mentioned before.
I love everything about Fantasy. I just like to discuss the realistic possibilities that exist AS WELL. smile Oh! And ED, sorry to have made you feel uncomfortable regarding the other thread. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:03 pm
Glad to hear it wasn't confusing to you.
It's okay. Things like that happen and end up taking a long and winding path unsuspectingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am
Yeah, especially when two or more people have radically differing opinions on something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:20 pm
Hey E-Dragon! I didn't think it was confusing either. mrgreen
But yeah, it's funny how things can take a turn for the worse sometimes.
Ok, back on track now. I think that if you can imagine it, it can exist in fantasy no matter if it makes sense to other people or not. After all, what might make sense to you might not make sense to me and viceversa. Don't you guys think so? I was making that point with the so called hero: "The Tick". But that's on another thread so I'm not going to expand here. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:51 am
I know what you're saying. However (such a good word), despite there being those who couldn't see the sense in something, or those who just didn't care, there will always be people who WILL care.
For example, if I read a book that's got tall ships in it and I notice something that's completely wrong with the structure, or the handling, or anything else that relates to them on a technical level, I will pick holes in it. Since learning about tall ships, I do it with Pirates of the Caribbean. The Black Pearl's rigging is COMPLETELY wrong, the boom that Will gets hit by in the first one wouldn't be that low down, and when the Pearl turns away from the Flying Dutchman in the second one, the ship wouldn't turn THAT fast. Sure, they're just films and they have a time limit to keep to, but it makes my head spin.
There will be people with attitudes like that reading my books, and other people's books as well. Some won't notice little errors, whereas others will and I intend not to look stupid when a smart aleck comes to me and says "can you explain this ...........?" and I'm left wondering why the *bleep* I didn't think of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:30 pm
EXACTLY! That's just what I was talking about! Thanks for pointing it out Mel! I had no idea the PotC movies had anything wrong in them. I'm glad we have an expert in such things to tell us. I'm sure they did that thing with Will getting hit on the first movie for some humor. I guess folks in Hollywood much rather sacrifice some things in the name of humor, huh? mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:05 am
Well the boom isn't going to be that low, however if there was a raised platform next to it that you could stand on it would work.
The bottom spar is the boom, and usually the helm is below it on most ships.
On Prince William and Stavros S Niarchos you can see where it is as well. Whoever doesn't have a facebook account here, get one. I can't be arsed to go into my photo albums on there and then saving them on photobucket as well just so people can see them.
Anyway, my point is that you do need SOME realism in fantasy in order to have the clarity. I'd rather sit smugly at a book signing after answering some smart aleck's question than look incredibly stupid in front of lots of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:41 pm
Nice info!
And I see what you mean too.
Btw, Legend of Zelda is mostly fantasy, isn't it? I was wondering how accurate it can be sometimes cuz, now that I've been playing Phantom Hourglass, I've been wondering if they got the wording right when riding the boat. For example, when the boat turns to the left, I read the words "hard turn to port" and when it turns to the right I think it says "hard turn to starboard". Is that accurate? How many parts does a ship have? Cuz I don't know which one is the front and which is the back. Or at least, I don't know the names anyway... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:48 pm
Hard to starboard is a command, yes. With manual controls it would take a heck of a lot more effort than it does today. Today most ships have hydraulics attached to the steering system and rudder. In the past, it was all manually done and that's why ships usually wouldn't turn fast.
But...where were we...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:31 pm
I think it's possible to have whatever you wish in fantasy, as long as you make it plausible. Just as in non-fiction or historical fiction (for example), you have got to make a point and support it--if you create a fantasy world in which some things happen a particular way, or something works that might otherwise seem strange... as long as you can explain it well within the bounds of the tale, and make it work in the same venue, it's good.
As an illustration: in one of my fantasy stories, the vampires either subsist on animal blood or drink "stored blood" (like in the bags with which blood is collected in drives nowadays) and the only time blood is taken from a victim or a willing subject is because of a need, a desire, or other plot point. I've been told rather snootily by "vampire experts" that no real vampire would do such a thing. It would be beneath their dignity; the blood would taste "stale" and not have the vibrancy that immediate human blood would have; it just doesn't seem right to the experts. Well... in my world that's how it happens. If my vamps went about taking human blood (or the occasional vampire's) it would be commonplace and take the punch out of the scenes where, according to the plot, immediate blood must be taken to get the story where it needs to go. So people reading that tale just need to comprehend how my vampires "do it."
Does that make my story any less fantasy? I don't think so. As long as anything you do in your tale is correct for your creation and seems plausible in situ, then it works and can still be fantasy.
What bugs me is when someone suddenly realizes they need some kind of magical whatzit and poof! It's there, and they waste several paragraphs, usually in the middle of the action, telling us how the darned thing got there. One example I saw in a LOTR fanfic was of a Mary-Sue type super-warrior Elf princess accompanying the Fellowship (because apparently in this tale they weren't UP TO THE JOB without her...) where she (and I'm not kidding... take this trip with me, imagine this happening...) 1) leaped down from a horse while at full gallop, 2) wrapped the reins about her wrist to prevent the panicked equine from running away (WTF???? Can't be done, folks, don't even THINK of doing it...), 3) spoke a spell without missing a beat or being short of breath (and it was in high Valarin speech, of course...), 4) unlimbered her bow (which had magically not broken when she vaulted from the speeding, panicked horse...), strung it, and fired off about six shots that all struck home... 5) took out a sword large enough to break the wrist of Glorfindel (who's had lots of practice with such stuff and probably uses it two-handed...) and lays about with it--and suddenly remembers that Elrond gave her a special magical thingie, a necklace that had been "touched to Vilya and so it shared its properties".
The writer spent three paragraphs recalling the story of how she got it (mind you the battle is still going ON...) instead of going back to the chapter where it belongs and putting the extra exposition THERE...) and then got back to her Girl saving the frickin' DAY because Legolas was apparently so stunned by her ferocious beauty in battle that he was standing there gobsmacked, just staring while she did his job... and Aragorn and Boromir were equally stunned by her expertise... and Gandalf was insulted that she had gotten the necklace not him... (were he and Elrond dating or something?? Sheesh...). Gimli she routinely forgot about, and the Hobbitses all adored the Mary-Sue, so of course they'd somehow decided to take out snacks, sit on a log, and watch her in her magnificence....
THAT is the kind of Quatsch that takes me right out of someone's universe creation, makes me scream, makes me want to hurt them, AND makes me leave scathing reviews... is it still fantasy? Yes, but not the sort the writer intended. Is it good writing? Heck no. It doesn't work, it's poorly planned, it's crap, and it makes me completely lose respect for the writer.
In short... umm... smile Sorry for the rant. I think anything CAN be fantasy as long as you do it well, do your homework, understand what you're up to, and make it real within your milieu--and don't break the laws of grammar and good style. I always personally feel more comfortable when the fantasy elements that are based on "real world" stuff actually hew the line in terms of how they should work--it makes the fantasy parts more believable to me.
My opinion... at great length as usual.... smile I hope it makes sense....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Well, good to know they got it right when it comes to sailing. I should probably still research it more though...
I think Jasta picked up where we left up rather well. That's why I am trying to make my Kenshin Belmont story as believable as I can. I think it's mostly "historical fiction" cuz it has many things that actually happened, mixed in with creatures or things that are not exactly real.
I'm glad Jasta came by but I'm gonna have to read the rest of her post later. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:39 pm
Regarding your vampire thing Jasta, it doesn't make them any less plausible really, but I assume you have a good reason for them being that way? It's been done before in programmes like Buffy (Angel does it), and in the third Blade movie (the vampires keep victims brain dead in bags and harvest their blood without killing them - that's cruel but it's a similar yet different concept).
The only problem I find with it is that to me it completely goes against a vampire's nature as a demon. Having the occasional one like Angel doesn't pose an issue for me, but having all of them like it doesn't seem right to me in my own personal opinion. If you've got "good" vampires that do that and others that go with the standard biting of victims, then I can fully support the idea.
No offence! That's just the way I see those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
